Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad vs K. Penta Reddy And Ors. on 5 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD384, 2002(2)ALT553, [2002(94)FLR234]
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan, I. Venkatanarayana
JUDGMENT Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. Heard Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.5201 of 1993 dated 4th December, 1996 directing the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex to absorb the respondents herein in regular service as and when vacancies arise in future keeping in view the principle governing Section 25-F and the allied subsequent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the above direction, the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex filed the present writ appeal.
3. We have perused the pleadings and also the judgment under appeal. In our considered opinion, with regard to the absorption/appointment of contract labour in regular posts, they have to be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules having regard to the age, qualifications and experience, subject to availability of vacancies. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4-12-1997 is at variance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.189 of 1990 dated 24-1-1994. Respondents 1 to 30 herein were not engaged by the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex but by a contractor for a particular period and for a particular job and as such they are not 'workmen' for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They would not be entitled to reinstatement/ absorption in service as there is no question of termination or discharge as the engagement was for a particular period and for a particular job and such employment came to an end automatically as soon as the time was over and the job and over. This was the view expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of Crompton Engineering Company v. Additional Labour Court, 1975 (1) LLJ 207. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters like this has laid down the law in Dinanath v. National Fertilisers Limited and Ors., 1991 (4) SC 413. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in Sail v. National Union Water Front Workers, 2001 (5) Scale 626, has also observed as follows:
"Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act (Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970) nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment."
4. In our view the question of retrenchment of contract labour does not arise when they were engaged for specific period and for a particular job and as such the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted. It is brought to our notice that the Central Government as a matter of policy have issued instructions to the Department of Personnel vide OM No.49014/84-Estt(C) dated 7-5 1985 to discontinue engagement of casual labour and further clarified in Office Memorandum F.No.49014/2/86-Estt (C) dated 7th June, 1988 reiterating that it should be ensured that there is no more engagement of casual workers for attending to work of a regular nature. Thus, there is no policy to engage casual labour in any manner and the direction issued by the learned single Judge for absorption against a regular vacancy, in our opinion, is not correct and, therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge.
5. In view of the above discussion and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we allow the writ appeal. No order as to costs.
Contempt Case No.614 of 1998 :
In view of the above order passed in the writ appeal, this contempt case shall stand dismissed. However, we reserve liberty to the respondents to move the Central Government or any other appropriate authority for redressal. No order as to costs.